Mark Levin (radio host and author of Liberty and Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto) has done a wonderful service by pulling together articles about government-run healthcare and putting them on his show's website.

Here's the link:

The Problems with Socialized Health Care (http://www.liberty-page.com/issues/healthcare/socialized.html#canada)

The problems of government-run healthcare in other countries is also available on the same page.

For those of you who argue about how wonderful your experiences have been in the Candian system, how do you explain the systemic problems discussed in these articles? These articles show serious flaws in government-run health care, where thousands of people not only fall through the cracks by accident, but are deliberately pushed through the cracks.

I know, I know, you will all point out the "46 million Americans" without health insurance. 15% of the American population, you'll say.

Let's leave aside the fact that the 46 million figure has been exaggerated, and is really about 10-15 million (3-5% of the population). I've explained that before based on the Heritage Foundation's analysis, and I see no reason to rehash that again here.

But the fact is that we already have government-run healthcare that is designed to cover such people. Medicare and Medicaid are there specifically to help those with disabilities who are unable to afford health insurance, or are there to help those with insufficient income who cannot afford health insurance. Medicare and Medicaid cost roughly 20% of the budget of each state in the USA... 20% of everything we spend is Medicare and Medicaid, which are specifically designed to cover those most in need. We are supposedly spending 20% of all the government's money to cover just 3-15% of the population for medical care.

And yet that system fails. It fails to cover anywhere from 15-45 million people, depending whether you accept the Heritage Foundation's analysis or not. Those who criticize the US medical system are right about that... there is definitely a percentage of the population that is not covered.

But it is a failure of the GOVERNMENT-RUN SYSTEM that is at fault. Private health insurance is covering exactly who it is supposed to cover... those who pay for it. There has been no failure in coverage there. If you pay for insurance, you have insurance. The failure is in the government-run Medicare and Medicaid system, which is supposed to be covering those not otherwise covered, but is not doing so. Government-run health care is where the problem lies, not private health insurance.

So let me get this straight...

1) Knowing what we know about the failures of the Canadian health system and other government-run health systems,
2) Knowing that the US Medicare and Medicaid systems are already failing to do what they were created to do, which is to cover those who are not already covered due to lack of employment or disability
3) Knowing that government has failed in running such things as social security, the VA Hospital system, and even the US Postal service with anything approaching efficiency,

Knowing all these things, why would anyone push for a government-run health system in the USA modeled on the systems of Canada and the UK?

Elliot

1) Knowing what we know about the failures of the Canadian health system and other government-run health systems,
No failure here. Quit making bald-face lies. It's almost time to put you on Ignore if you continue pushing your propaganda of disinformation.

No failure here. Quit making bald-face lies. It's almost time to put you on Ignore if you continue pushing your propaganda of disinformation.

Have you read any of the articles that I linked to?

I think you are the bald faced liar, NK. There are 72 articles from Canadian sources pointing out the failures of which I speak, and you are denying it. That makes YOU a liar, not me.

Read before you speak, NK. You MIGHT just learn something about your own system.

Elliot

Read before you speak, NK. You MIGHT just learn something about your own system.

I live it!

Have you read any of the articles that I linked to?

I think you are the bald faced liar, NK. There are 72 articles from Canadian sources pointing out the failures of which I speak, and you are denying it.Hello El:

I didn't read them. I don't doubt, however, that there's at least 72 right wing writers in Canada willing to spin stuff, just like Mark Levin does. Do I need to read their swill? No, of course not! For sure, you're not going to read any liberal crap I recommend, so don't come down on me/us for doing exactly what you yourself do. Yes, I know, that's how Republicans act, but try to stifle yourself.

excon

I live it!

So do the people who wrote those articles, and the people about whom those articles are written.

Hello El:

I didn't read them. I don't doubt, however, that there's at least 72 right wing writers in Canada willing to spin stuff, just like Mark Levin does. Do I need to read their swill? No, of course not! For sure, you're not gonna read any liberal crap I recommend, so don't come down on me/us for doing exactly what you yourself do. Yes, I know, that's how Republicans act, but try to stifle yourself.

excon

Typical leftist. Ignore science if it doesn't support your claim, but embrace it if it does. Ignore statistics if they don't support your position, but embrace them if they do.

BTW, most of the statistical information in those articles come from CANADIAN GOVERNMENT SOURCES, not right-wingers. You know... the guys who actually run the system...

You have indeed drunk the lib koolaid, excon. You're not even willing to take the time to read the information in question because you are convinced it's right-wing spin. THAT IS THE ACTIONS OF A KOOLAID DRINKER.

I think you need to change your signature.

Elliot

I notice with the Australian section he could only find 6 articles. He needs to Google a little better. We've had more negative articles than that. And this guy calls himself a journalist? Links to a few newspaper articles about some problems in hospitals doesn't mean squat.

Anyone can Google Elliot. See;

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-failure-of-us-healthcare/

It really amazes me how people will defend the failed health care system to our north. Tonight on the news it was mentioned that in CanadA there is a 16% higher death rate from cancer than in the US. HUMMMMM Is that because of the 8 week delay before a Canadian can get chemo or radiation treatment when they are diagnosed with cancer? Sure glad I don't live in CanadA, I would be a widower based on those numbers!

Anyone can google Elliot. See;

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-failure-of-us-healthcare/Well there you go, that proves it, the US healthcare system is a failure.

Sure glad I don't live in CanadAThank you for that. :D

I notice with the Australian section he could only find 6 articles. He needs to google a little better. We've had more negative articles than that. And this guy calls himself a journalist?? Links to a few newspaper articles about some problems in hospitals doesnt mean squat.

Anyone can google Elliot. See;

http://thehealthyskeptic.org/the-failure-of-us-healthcare/

Skell,

First of all, Levin doesn't call himself a journalist. He's a radio talkshow host and a former member of the Reagan Administration. He was, in fact, Chief of Staff to Attorney General Ed Meese. He is also a noted Constitutional Lawyer and author of three best-selling books. The first, "Men in Black: How the Supreme Court id Destroying American" is a critique of the Supreme Court's drift away from originalism. His second best seller, "Rescuing Sprite: A Dog Lover's Story of Joy and Anguish" is the story of his and his family's relationship with his beloved pet who he rescued from a shelter in 2004 and had to put down in 2006 due to health issues. His third book, "Liberty and Tyranny: a Conservative Manifesto" has spent 12 (maybe more, I'm not sure) of the past 15 weeks as number 1 on the NY Times best seller list, and explains the differences between Conservatism and Statism (his word for all forms of liberalism) and why Conservatism is superior in all aspects. It also serves as a call to action for conservatism in the USA.

But at no point has he ever called himself a journalist.

Second, I have no doubt that there are many articles about the problems with the US health care system out there. After all, the leftist media is on board with Obama's plans to socialize the medical system, so any articles on the subject would be skewed in that direction. And there are indeed problems with the US medical system. As has been pointed out, anywhere from 3% to 15% of the US population is not covered by insurance, despite the fact that Medicare and Medicaid exist to cover those gaps. The government system designed to close the gaps has failed to do so, and creating a BIGGER government system is not going to fix the problem. And I agree that there is wasteful spending within the health care industry, primarily due to CYA Medicine or Defensive Medicine (performing extra, unneeded tests in order to cover your butt). I agree that we have problems with our health care system that need to be addressed. But that is NOT my point here.

My point in showing those articles about the Canadian system is to refute the claims of the Canadians among us who claim that their system is hunky-dory and has no systemic problems. People on this board like NK have claimed that there are no significant wait periods, no significant gaps in coverage, and no failures of the Canadian health system because they haven't experienced them. These articles are there to point to statistical data that points out where the failures are in the Canadian system AND that those failures result in worse outcomes for patients than the US healthcare system has. I also point to the articles about other countries to show that this is not simply a failure of Canada and Canada alone, but rather a failure of government-run healthcare in general. All government-run systems have the same types of failures and faults, regardless of which country we are talking about. INCLUDING THE US SYSTEMS OF MEDICARE AND MEDICAID, WHICH HAVE FAILED TO CLOSE THE GAPS THEY ARE DESIGNED TO CLOSE. US-run government health care is no less prone to failure than government-run health care of other countries. It is also no less prone to wasting money... in fact, the US government spends $500 to buy a hammer. I have no doubt about wasteful spending within Medicare and Medicaid.

Which leads to the final group of questions that I posted.

If the system we have produces better results than the Canadian system and other similar systems, despite the US system's failures, why would we want to switch to the Canadian or other similar systems?

By the way, I noticed two things about the article you linked to. The "recent study" by Barbra Starfield that was published in JAMA cited in this article was from 2000... which isn't all that "recent". I don't question the accuracy of the data, just its timliness. Also, for all it's criticism of waste within the US system, there is no discussion whatsoever in the article about case outcomes and effect on patients. I suspect that is because if we were to look at patient outcomes, we would find much better results than can be found in the cases of our counterparts in government-run healthcare systems. So better to concentrate on the idea of "wasteful spending" without looking at the payoff than to have those statistics rubbed in the face of the author of the article.

The final question regarding that article is, if the biggest issue in the US medical system is wasteful spending, which this article's author seems to indicate, does anyone really think that getting the government involved is going to create more efficiencies in spending?

Remember, as I pointed out above, the government is the same body that buys a hammer for $500. The same government that wanted to spend $390 million on a bridge to nowhere in Alaska. The same government that, according to watchdog groups, made $20 billion in overpayments to its vendors in 2001 alone. The same government that, through the Advanced Technology Program, an agency which is supposed to subsidize small businesses, gave 40% of its $150 million budget ($60 million) to Fortune 500 companies that don't qualify for such funding. The same government that pay farmers $2 billion per year NOT to farm their land. And here's the one that applies most to our issue... This is the same government whose Medicare program pays 8 times as much for medicines as other federal agency programs do.

By what stretch of the imagination can one possibly think that getting the government involved in health care is going to make the system more efficient in its spending practices?

Elliot

Second, I have no doubt that there are many articles about the problems with the US health care system out there. After all, the leftist media is on board with Obama's plans to socialize the medical system, so any articles on the subject would be skewed in that direction.
If you think that the internet is a leftist media then you are a full blown conspiracy theorist. Is the whole world a "leftist" plot against you?

If you think that the internet is a leftist media then you are a full blown conspiracy theorist. Is the whole world a "leftist" plot against you?

No, I don't think that the internet is leftist. I believe that ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, NPR, PBS, the NY Times, the Washington Post, and most of the rest of the media are leftist. And they post much of what has been written on the subject of healthcare in the USA on the internet. My point is that with the MSM being so leftist, I am sure that there are quite a few more articles about the failures of the US health care system out there. They can be found quite easily.

And no, the whole world is not a leftist plot. Just the Obama Administration and the MSM. In fact, they are so skewed to the left that countries like Germany, France, the UK and Russia are telling Obama that he's going too far socialist in his financial policy.

Imagine that... the European socialist countries telling the USA that they are moving too far to the left.

Elliot

Thank you for that. :D

I'll bet you would not be so glib if it was you or your mother dying from an under treated cancer!

Ah yes, Obama's socialism again, like the talking points we see all the time from the rightists. (LOL!)

Here's what it looks like:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png

I'll bet you would not be so glib if it was you or your mother dying from an under treated cancer!Wow, we went from you not being in Canada to my mother's untreated cancer. Nice segue. My mother is recovering nicely from hip replacement surgery. All went well, staff at hospital and rehab are excellent and we will never see a medical bill, nor deal with an insurance company nor need the services of a lawyer.

SO! My MIL also had a hip replacement about 12 weeks ago. It cost her a grand total of $800 plus a few prescriptions at $4.00 each. That includes about a month in a rehab facility. Health insurance is available and affordable to all who want to buy it. Many people feel no need for health coverage. With the government's history of management, what makes any thinking individual believe that the Government can do a better job than private sector?

With the government's history of management, what makes any thinking individual believe that the Government can do a better job than private sector??I agree, your government is too corrupted to run it right.

Ah yes, Obama's socialism again, like the talking points we see all the time from the rightists. (LOL!)

Here's what it looks like:

http://correspondents.theatlantic.com/conor_clarke/socialism%20chart.png

First of all, the graph is bogus. It just so happens that the government is the single largest real estate holder in the USA owning something like 80% of all undeveloped land in the USA and something like 20% of the buildings in the USA. The fact that they don't call them "business assets" doesn't mean that they don't count. This graph ignores government ownership of real estate completely.

Then there's the amount of assets owned by the Department of Defense... all those tanks, planes, ships, army bases, ammunition, etc. and all the assets necessary to support them. Again, they are not considered "business assets" so they are not taken into consideration in this graph.

Third, Medicare and Medicaid are roughly 20% of the national budget of each state (some a little more, some a little less). The government doesn't consider Medicare and Medicaid "business assets" and so doesn't count them in this graph.

If you take a look at total assets owned by the government, you will find that there is very little blue in that graph and a whole lot of red. And if you look at it from a GDP perspective instead of an asset perspective, the government is currently in control of 12% of the sources of GDP in the USA. If we add nationalized health care, that number jumps to control of over 20% of GDP sources. That is a large number for a country that still calls itself a capitalist nation. But Obama's just getting started.

Obama IS a socialist. He is taking control of everything in sight. The auto industry, the energy industry, banks, insurance companies, lightbulb companies, and he's working on controlling medical insurance companies, hospitals, drug companies and doctors' offices. The fact that you happen to LIKE the fact that he is taking control of these industries doesn't mean that it isn't socialism. It just means that you are a socialist too.

Don't like being called a socialist? Perhaps "statist" is a term you would prefer. You, like Obama, believe that the answer to all your problems is more government control... more state power. That is the definition of statism. That is also the definition of socialism.

Elliot

Wow, we went from you not being in Canada to my mother's untreated cancer. Nice segue. My mother is recovering nicely from hip replacement surgery. All went well, staff at hospital and rehab are excellent and we will never see a medical bill, nor deal with an insurance company nor need the services of a lawyer.

Questions:
How long did your mother have to wait for the visit with her primary care physician to check out the pain in her hip?
How long did it take for your mother's doctor to figure out that the pain in her hip was due to a need for a hip replacement?
How long did it take for your mother to see the specialist once her PCP figured out what was wrong with her?
How long did your mother wait before she was approved for the surgery?

How much less time would each of these things have taken in the USA? What was the quality of care compared to the USA?

And finally, what percentage of your income is (or was) your mom paying in taxes... all taxes, not just federal income tax? I include local income taxes, sales tax, vat tax, capital gains tax, everything. And how does that compare to taxes in the USA?

You may not see a bill for your mother's care, but that doesn't mean the care is free. You or your mother are still paying for it with much higher taxes than we have here in the USA. And if you compare the care in Canada OVERALL (not just your single case) with care in the USA, you will find that you (as a nation, not you in specific) are paying more for less quality and slower response. Again, as a nation, not in your specific case.

This is a fact. It is a fact that has even been acknowledged by your own government, whether you wish to admitt it or not. That is why your government has tried to implement waiting period limits... they acknowledged that the wait periods were too long. Unfortunately, they haven't been able to fix the problem except by knocking some people off the waiting lists... aka rationing care. But despite the fact that your own government has acknowledged the problems in your system, you continue to insist that the problems don't exist.

Whatever!

Elliot

First of all, the graph is bogus. It just so happens that the government is the single largest real estate holder in the USA owning something like 80% of all undeveloped land in the USA and something like 20% of the buildings in the USA. The fact that they don't call them "business assets" doesn't mean that they don't count. This graph ignores government ownership of real estate completely.

Then there's the amount of assets owned by the Department of Defense... all those tanks, planes, ships, army bases, ammunition, etc. and all the assets necessary to support them. Again, they are not considered "business assets" so they are not taken into consideration in this graph.
ElliotYou completely missed the point. The graph doesn't take into account "assets" that were owned by the government *before* the change in administration, what's the point in that? It shows the changes since the change in admin. Hey if you want to call me a socialist that's fine, it's no insult. I go with what works. I know what I'm not and that's a pure, no-holds barred, screw-the-other-guy, power-hungry capitalist. That's what messing up your country, the values are all screwed up and it's being reflected in your corrupt government and corporate leaders. Good luck with that!

I agree, your government is too corrupted to run it right.

So's yours. You just can't see it.

Questions:
How long did your mother have to wait for the visit with her primary care physician to check out the pain in her hip? She went by ambulance, she broke her femur.
How long did it take for your mother's doctor to figure out that the pain in her hip was due to a need for a hip replacement? None.
How long did it take for your mother to see the specialist once her PCP figured out what was wrong with her? Specialist was at hospital, saw her right away.
How long did your mother wait before she was approved for the surgery? She didn't need to be approved, they scheduled her right in. YOU guys ned the approval, we don't.

How much less time would each of these things have taken in the USA? What was the quality of care compared to the USA? I just posted how good her care was, the family is happy. Who knows what would have happened in the US.

And finally, what percentage of your income is (or was) your mom paying in taxes... all taxes, not just federal income tax? Same as we all pay, don't know the percentage. But we don't whine about it because we're ok with the service rendered.

You may not see a bill for your mother's care, but that doesn't mean the care is free. No one ever said that. We all know how it's paid. You or your mother are still paying for it with much higher taxes than we have here in the USA. Yup, we're ok with that.
And if you compare the care in Canada OVERALL (not just your single case) with care in the USA, you will find that you (as a nation, not you in specific) are paying more for less quality and slower response. Nope. You keep trying to convince me because that is your agenda.

Questions:
How long did your mother have to wait for the visit with her primary care physician to check out the pain in her hip? She went by ambulance, she broke her femur.
How long did it take for your mother's doctor to figure out that the pain in her hip was due to a need for a hip replacement? None.
How long did it take for your mother to see the specialist once her PCP figured out what was wrong with her? Specialist was at hospital, saw her right away.
How long did your mother wait before she was approved for the surgery? She didn't need to be approved, they scheduled her right in. YOU guys ned the approval, we don't.

How much less time would each of these things have taken in the USA? What was the quality of care compared to the USA? I just posted how good her care was, the family is happy. Who knows what would have happened in the US.

And finally, what percentage of your income is (or was) your mom paying in taxes... all taxes, not just federal income tax? Same as we all pay, don't know the percentage. But we don't whine about it because we're ok with the service rendered.

You may not see a bill for your mother's care, but that doesn't mean the care is free. No one ever said that. We all know how it's paid. You or your mother are still paying for it with much higher taxes than we have here in the USA. Yup, we're ok with that.
And if you compare the care in Canada OVERALL (not just your single case) with care in the USA, you will find that you (as a nation, not you in specific) are paying more for less quality and slower response. Nope. You keep trying to convince me because that is your agenda.

Ahhh... it was an emergency situation, not an elective surgery. That's pretty instantaneous in the USA too, and if you can't pay, you still get medical care anyway. Your universal health system is no improvement over our system there... and it costs you more in taxes than it does for the guy wh can't pay in the USA.

So what you are saying is that you know you pay more than we do, and just don't care. Fine by me. Just don't tout your system as a money-saving endeavour.

But the point of the system is to help those who CAN'T pay. I wonder if the people who are struggling financially are happy to be paying such high tax rates.

The average American worker pays about $3,400 per year for medical insurance (his employer covers the rest) and is covered for everything. In Canada, your taxes are so much higher than ours that you are paying more than $3,400 more than we are in taxes. We're paying less than you are in taxes.

Now, if you want to tell me that you're OK paying more, that's fine. But don't tell me that the Canadian system saves you money and therefore helps people in financial need, because your system is costing you more in taxes than our system costs us on average.

Elliot

But don't tell me that the Canadian system saves you money I never said that. I alluded to the fact the we don't go bankrupt due to medical bills.

I never said that. I alluded to the fact the we don't go bankrupt due to medical bills.

No, you go bankrupt due to taxes... which are driven in large part by medical expenses.

Which means your people go bankrupt due to medical bills. The difference is that it's the GOVERNMENT'S medical bills rather than bills in your name.

Big deal!

Elliot

No, you go bankrupt due to taxes... which are driven in large part by medical expenses.
Absolutely not. But nice try.

I personally think the number of people in the USA without any health insurance is probably closer to 100 million. I have no idea where they come up with the 15% figure. Ridiculously low number if you ask me. The 15% would be all the illegal aliens then and that figure is wrong anyway if you are counting just them and not Americans.

Health insurance is a real scam if you ask me. They already made car insurance mandatory (but the illegals don't even bother getting car insurance) and now they're trying to push health insurance down our throats. Does anyone really think the illegals are going to register for health insurance? No.

If more Americans just stopped eating out at Micky D's, BK, KFC, pizza joints and started eating sensible foods (yes, I'm dreaming here) then a lot of health problems would not exist. Ban the advertising of pizza, fast burgers, etc on TV like they banned tobacco ads years ago and the populace would be much, much healthier in the long run. But then who would have the guts to pass that sort of legislation on junk food advertising? Not any of our cash cow politicians, that's for sure. They have their hands deep into the pockets of Big Pharma and like the wads of cash they keep pulling out of the magic bottomless pit pocket.

In Russia they have universal health coverage for citizens ONLY. You must prove you are a Russian citizen to get treatment. They will treat tourists for free though but not treat the illegal aliens for free. The US should institute a similar policy and stick to it. The treatment for free of all the illegal aliens in California really trashed that state financially having to close many hospitals.

If a person in Canada has to go through the normal channels to get say a hip replacement due to the hip deteriorating it would not be instantaneous service. It would be many months or weeks before such major surgery would be given permission to be done. Accident problems get immediate attention. Rightly so. But for 98% of everyone who needs a hip replacement I'm positive it's many months or weeks of waiting. Can't be any other way to get around their system.

The universal health plan in the US is also a terrific way of population control by withholding services to the elderly. Also, it would curtail extremely expensive operations from routinely happening. Only the rich or some politician's relative would be eligible to receive these "expensive procedures or treatments". The rest of the population would just be put on indefinite hold and told to come back next month (year, whatever). I do forsee this happening here in the USA. Sooner than anyone can even imagine.

Elliot,

I'm not suggesting that the Government will do a better job running health care in your country. In fact I don't really care.. I was simply suggesting that links to articles on a few failures in other countries systems isn't what I call a strong argument.

I think your best argument is the question you pose about what makes people think that a government with such a wasteful history would do a good job with health. That's a good question. But I think Excon makes some good points in rebuttal. Particularly about the insurance companies.

The fact that this is such a big issue must mean there is a problem.

Health care in Australia is an issue. Always will be. But generally it is so easy. Most people are happy. We don't have such strong debate because of this. Sure there is the odd botch up, mis-run hospital, or wasteful spending but generally everyone gets the care they require at little or no cost.

The fact that it such a big issues in the US and a debate that seems to have been going on for some time suggests to me that there is a problem. Your answer to the problem seems to be to simply go on doing exactly what you are doing now... Others feel there is a need for change if problems are to be fixed. Your instant dismissal of other models based on some negative articles dragged up by a conservative with the same opinion as you isn't going to convince the people who feel change is required.

That was my point.

http://www2.nationalreview.com/images/cover_072009_large.jpg

Oh I get it, he going to stick a finger up your a$$. Hahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha.

Oh I get it, he gonna stick a finger up your a$$. Hahahhahahahahahahahhahahahahahaha.

In the US we refer to that as he's telling the American public to "bend over."

In the US we refer to that as he's telling the American public to "bend over."
More anal sex similes? Interesting.

More anal sex similes? Interesting.

Get a clue, NK. Connect that with the image of Obama as the doctor and you should easily be able to come up with what I mean. Get your mind out of the gutter.

Dude you chose that pic to post, not me.

They already made car insurance mandatory (but the illegals don't even bother getting car insurance) and now they're trying to push health insurance down our throats.


I don't want to deal with the illegals aspect to this comment . But indeed the plan is to force everyone into some form of health insurance whether they want it or not. There are a significant part of the uninsured who have chosen to not contract for health insurance . For some it is an economic decision but also there are many more young adults who would choose things like enhanced cell phone options ;large flat screen HDTV ,cars that are less than the economy model ,and frequent dinners out over the purchase of health coverage.

But don't despair . The plan working it's way through Congress would force them to sign on to a health plan regardless that they would make other choices with their money.

The Senate version imposes fines of $1,000 for uninsured people who decline coverage. Families will pay even more if they don't sign on.It's modeled on the Taxachusett plan, which also imposes a $1,000 fine.


The fact that this is such a big issue must mean there is a problem.


And yet 80% of Americans (243 million )have indicated we like our current coverage and doctors. Even if the system needs tweeking to deal with the few who are uninsured and would like to be covered ,it does not mean the whole system needs to be scrapped and replaced with a draconian alternative .

Dude you chose that pic to post, not me.

I guess you can't tell the difference between a gloved finger and some other 'gloved' anatomical appendage.

I guess you can't tell the difference between a gloved finger and some other 'gloved' anatomical appendage.Where does that gloved finger go?

Geez NK, figure it out.

Hello again,

I don't know what the Democrats are going to pass. If they pass one, I'll bet it'll be an incremental plan toward a single payer plan that will work, but the incremental part won't.

I think we'll drown before we get to the part that works.

The word "works", means that everybody is covered for LESS money. Plus we'll get BETTER services. It's really a matter of arithmetic, and I can add.

Yes, some health insurance salesmen will have to find work, but things change... I don't know. Farmers had to find new work too during the industrial revolution, but that wasn't a reason to STOP the revolution.

The revolution I'm talking about?? It's when the health care industry begins being concerned about HEALTH instead of PROFIT!!

excon

The word "works", means that everybody is covered for LESS money. Plus we'll get BETTER services. It's really a matter of arithmetic, and I can add.

How do they do that?

How do they do that?Hello Steve:

According to the report, here: http://www.nwfco.org/pubs/2008.0110_Insuring.Health.or.Ensuring.Profit.pdf called Insuring Health or Ensuring Profits, the big three carriers in Washington, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. Please note, these are profits, and not simply income.

The article shows medical costs rose 16 percent in the same period that health insurance profits went up 23 percent.

So, if I took the latest numbers from Washington state which are offset somewhat because they're old, and because my state is probably larger than your average one, my numbers are probably very close...

If you take $431 Million, and multiply it by 50 states, you get a number like $21.5 BILLION $$$$'s. I'm just suggesting that for that amount we could insure ALL 47 million of the uninsured with bread left over for better services...

I'm just saying..

excon

Hello again,

I don't know what the Democrats are going to pass. If they pass one, I'll bet it'll be an incremental plan toward a single payer plan that will work, but the incremental part won't.

I think we'll drown before we get to the part that works.

The word "works", means that everybody is covered for LESS money. Plus we'll get BETTER services. It's really a matter of arithmetic, and I can add.

So what you are saying is you want more for less, and you want the government to provide it. And you think you can add? What part of your definition of what "works" proves your ability to do basic math? When has the government ever given us more for less?

Yep, we are going to drown.

Want to know the really sick part... even under Obama's plan and by Obama's admission, there will still be 36 million people uninsured (compared to 46 million that are uninsured now by his count).

So we will have effectively dismantled a sysem that everyone admits is effective at least 85% of the time (actually more, but I'll accept Obama's numbers for now) with the purpose of insuring the uninsured, and almost 4/5ths of those currently uninsured will STILL be uninsured when the dust settles. In the end, even Obama admits that his plan only insures about 10 million that are not currently covered, or 3% of the US population. To affect a change to 3% of the population, he's going to dismantle the whole system and screw the 85% that are doing just fine, thank you.

Not to mention the 125 million people that he admitts will be forced to give up their private insurance and sign up with the government system on day one, whether they want to or not, despite his promise of CHOICE within his plan.

We're supposed to just accept this?


Yes, some health insurance salesmen will have to find work, but things change... I don't know. Farmers had to find new work too during the industrial revolution, but that wasn't a reason to STOP the revolution.

The revolution I'm talking about?? It's when the health care industry begins being concerned about HEALTH instead of PROFIT!!

Excon

Excon, I don't understand you... you just said that you think we'll drown under the government system before we get to what works. That's a pretty scathing statement about the health care system that Obama is proposing.

And then in your next sentence, you go on to defend that system as some sort of revolution.

Your statements don't make sense. Why would you support something that you have just said you don't think can work.

How can you compare what Obama is doing to the Industrial Revolution. In the Industrial Revolution, nobody came forward and said "We're going to dismantle what works and replace it with something else." The Industrial Revolution was a slow process. The Cotton Gin took years to catch on before it became the industry standard. Years during which displaced workers could find new jobs and learn new skills that matched the new technologies being invented. Years during which markets adjusted to new realities. The Industrial Revolution was not a government-mandated, immediate change to a new economy. It was a process that took nearly a century, and which allowed people time to adjust as the revolution moved. You can't compare a mandated change to nationalized health care to the Industrial Revolution.

The Industrial Revolution was driven by capitalist markets that based themselves on maximizing profit and moved at the speed of the markets, and no faster, so that the markets could gauge the effects and the consequences of the new technologies. This idea of nationalized healthcare is being driven by political ideology with no attention paid to consequences, financial or other. You can't compare the two.

The entire comparison is completely nuts. There IS no comparison. The causes are different. The effects are different. The forces that move them are different.

There is a contrast between the Industrial Revolution and Nationalized Health Care, however... a negative one. The Industrial Revolution was a success on most levels. Centralized government planning, however, has been a failure every time it has been tried.

Elliot

How can you compare what Obama is doing to the Industrial Revolution. Hello El:

Yup. You missed it. Obama in an incrementalist. That ain't going to work. I'm a full bore single payer dude. Single payer will work. Incrementalism won't. Nope. Unlike you righty's, I don't walk in lockstep with anyone.

Changing our profit driven health care system into a HEALTH driven health care system will be like the industrial revolution - or similar enough.

excon

Hello Steve:

According to the report, here: http://www.nwfco.org/pubs/2008.0110_Insuring.Health.or.Ensuring.Profit.pdf called Insuring Health or Ensuring Profits, the big three carriers in Washington, Regence BlueShield, Premera Blue Cross and Group Health Cooperative saw profits increase from $11 million in 2002 to $243 million in 2003 and $431 million in 2006. Please note, these are profits, and not simply income.

The article shows medical costs rose 16 percent in the same period that health insurance profits went up 23 percent.

So, if I took the latest numbers from Washington state which are offset somewhat because they're old, and because my state is probably larger than your average one, my numbers are probably very close...

If you take $431 Million, and multiply it by 50 states, you get a number like $21.5 BILLION $$$$'s. I'm just suggesting that for that amount we could insure ALL 47 million of the uninsured with bread left over for better services...

I'm just sayin..

excon

You're just sayin'... what?

Unfortunately, as I have said before, you are saying NOTHING. You don't know what the revenues of these companies are, and therefore, you have no idea what their profit MARGIN is. That $21.5 billion you estimate very broadly could be 1% of revenues or less. As I pointed out earlier in this thread, that number is actually very close to a 0.0175% profit margin. In other words, you have no idea whether these companies are making any serious profit or not. Nor do you even know if your estimate is accurate or not. You're just guessing based on what you read about 3 companies in one state. In fact, I don't even think that all three of those companies operate in every state. Nor do you know their market penetration in each state. So any extrapolation of their profitability based on their operations in a single state is just a guess. You have no idea whether these companies are making a profit overall or not. You know only their dollar profitability in one state, not even their profit margin, which would give you a whole lot more data about how much profit they really are making.

But we already know that you are anti-profit. You have already as much as admitted it in this thread. Health Insurance companies aren't allowed to be profitable. They have to LOSE money and go out of business instead. Otherwise, they are just pigs making money off the pain of others, right?

PROFIT is what drives people to provide a service. Maximizing profit is what drives them to do it efficiently. Government has no incentive to be profitable. If they lose money, they'll just print more (something you have claimed to be against). Therefore government has no incentive to provide service nor any incentive to do so efficiently. Therefore, any government-run solution to health care

Elliot

Hello El:

Yup. You missed it. Obama in an incrementalist. That ain't gonna work. I'm a full bore single payer dude. Single payer will work. Incrementalism won't. Nope. Unlike you righty's, I don't walk in lockstep with anyone.

Changing our profit driven health care system into a HEALTH driven health care system will be like the industrial revolution - or similar enough.

excon


Please explain the comparison... I need a good laugh.

Elliot

You're just sayin'... what?

Unfortunately, as I have said before, you are saying NOTHING. You don't know what the revenues of these companies are, and therefore, you have no idea what their profit MARGIN is. Hello again, El:

Yeah, I do know stuff. I certainly know what profits are. They're what's left AFTER you subtract ALL the other stuff. It's the amount below the BOTTOM LINE. So, how much income they had, or what their profit margin is, or how much ANYTHING they had, has all been taken care of above the BOTTOM LINE. That's why it's called the BOTTOM LINE.

So, when I speak of profits, I know what profits are. I also highlighted the word above, in hopes that readers would know that I understand profits too. But, it didn't work, did it?

Nonetheless, if my numbers are wrong, why don't you supply the right ones? How much DOES the health insurance industry EARN every year. When I say "earn", I mean profits. Those are what's left after ALL the expenses and taxes have been paid.

excon

Hello again, El:

Yeah, I do know stuff. I certainly know what profits are. They're what's left AFTER you subtract ALL the other stuff. It's the amount below the BOTTOM LINE. So, how much income they had, or what their profit margin is, or how much ANYTHING they had, has all been taken care of above the BOTTOM LINE. That's why it's called the BOTTOM LINE.

So, when I speak of profits, I know what profits are. I also highlighted the word above, in hopes that readers would know that I understand profits too. But, it didn't work, did it?

Nonetheless, if my numbers are wrong, why don't you supply the right ones? How much DOES the health insurance industry EARN every year. When I say "earn", I mean profits. Those are whats left after ALL the expenses and taxes have been paid.

excon


Here's a question:

Company A had a net profit of $100,000. Did the company do well or not?

Company B had a net profit of $100,000. Did the company do well or not?

Here's a few details:

Company A had sales of $100 million. It's top 5 officers decided not to take salaries or bonuses this year, despite having contracted salaries of $500,000 each plus bonus.

Company B had sales of $1 million, and it's top officer took a $100,000 salary and a $50,000 bonus. The company also paid out bonuses of $100,000 to all its employees.

Which company did well?

Company A had a net profit margin of 0.1%, and is barely profitable. It would have lost money had it paid the salaries to the execs. It is a company barely hanging on for its life.

Company B had a 10% profit margin after exorbitant salaries and bonuses. The company is poised for increasing sales in the next year, and likely will grow quickly. This company is in a growth cycle.

Two different companies with the same bottom line profitability figure. But two very different financial conditions at opposite extremes.

Knowing the bottom line dollar amount of profits without having any details about the companies tells you absolutely NOTHING. You don't have enough data to tell you whether these insurance companies are doing well or barely hanging on or are somewhere in the middle. Neither do I. Without more information, there is no way to know how well the insurance companies did based on a dollar figure for profits for a single state.

Sorry to tell you this, excon, but you don't know as much as you think you do about these insurance companies. Not that you are likely to admit it.

Elliot

Here's a question:

Company A had a net profit of $100,000. Did the company do well or not?

Company B had a net profit of $100,000. Did the company do well or not?

Here's a few details:

Company A had sales of $100 million. It's top 5 officers decided not to take salaries or bonuses this year, despite having contracted salaries of $500,000 each plus bonus.

Company B had sales of $1 million, and it's top officer took a $100,000 salary and a $50,000 bonus. The company also paid out bonuses of $100,000 to all its employees.

Which company did well?Hello again, El:

Boy, you are slippery, but I can keep you on track. I suppose you're trying to change the subject because you're afraid of the answer...

I'm talking about HOW MUCH these companies MAKE. You want to talk about how WELL THEY DO. They're not the same. I don't care if they're managed well or not. I care about how much they MAKE. If a badly managed company didn't make any profits, that fact didn't change the profits the well managed companies DID make. I stand by my numbers.

I ask you again, if I'm wrong, please supply the correct profit information for the health insurance industry. Afraid to look?? If it were you, I would be too.

excon

Well there ya go, that proves it, the US healthcare system is a failure.

Nobody is saying the USA's health care is great but from the stories we hear of people dying waiting for surgery makes us want another option.

Furthermore in our great stimulus package it does have a plan for a board that will decide if 'THEY FEEL' you should receive care or not. Therefore even if your socialized medicine isn't as bad as we think ours WILL BE thanks to that provision.

Hello again, El:

Boy, you are slippery, but I can keep you on track. I suppose you're trying to change the subject because you're afraid of the answer...

I'm talking about HOW MUCH these companies MAKE. You want to talk about how WELL THEY DO. They're not the same.

Absolutely correct. But knowing how much they made doesn't give you any useful information. What information have you gained about these companies? You mentioned $25 billion dollars. Is that a lot of money or a little? I don't know and neither do you.

Throwing around dollar figures with no other information to put those numbers into context is a good way of creating a false sentiment based on false information... Libs use it all the time. Like when they say that the government spends X dollars on military spending without telling you how that compares to the rest of government spending, how it compares to prior years, and what effect it has on the economy as a whole. It is just a number until it's put into context, and it's an emotionally charged number that creates a reaction on a false basis. I'm not going to let you get away with it no matter how hard you try.


I don't care if they're managed well or not. I care about how much they MAKE. If a badly managed company didn't make any profits, that fact didn't change the profits the well managed companies DID make. I stand by my numbers.

This statement made absolutely no sense. If you are looking at net incomes, those net incomes have to be compared to SOMETHING, otherwise they are meaningless, as I pointed out in my last response. Again, you are trying to create a false reaction based on a single figure taken out of context. Not on my watch.


I ask you again, if I'm wrong, please supply the correct profit information for the health insurance industry. Afraid to look?? If it were you, I would be too.

excon

They made every single penny you say they made. I won't argue that your figure is wrong. I'm aguing that your figure is meaningless without a context.

So... insurance companies made $25 billion dollars in the state of Washington in 2006. What does that tell you?

Absolutely nothing.

But $25 billion seems like a lot, so people see the number and get upset. But they get upset without knowing how many people were serviced by those companies, what those companies made in revenues, what they paid in expenses, and whether $25 billion was enough to support them in doing it again next year. Without context, your number means NOTHING, and I'm going to make sure everyone knows that fact.

Good try, excon, but I'm on to you, and I'm going to keep dogging you on this until you supply a context for the numbers you supply. A net income figure alone, with no other information is a meaning less piece of information that tells us NOTHING. Which is exactly the basis of your argument that these companies made too much money... NOTHING.

Good try, though.

Elliot

This statement made absolutely no sense. If you are looking at net incomes, those net incomes have to be compared to SOMETHING, otherwise they are meaningless, as I pointed out in my last response. Again, you are trying to create a false reaction based on a single figure taken out of context. Not on my watch.

Without context, your number means NOTHING, and I'm going to make sure everyone knows that fact.Hello again, El:

I don't know what's so hard here. You've got an industry that makes $25 Billion a year doing stuff. If you can get another entity (the government) to do the same stuff at the same rate, with the same cost structure, but doesn't have owners that it needs to split the profits with, there's $25 Billion left over to spend on whatever - like the uninsured. It's just simple arithmetic and not too difficult to understand.

excon

Hello again, El:

Let me ask you a question... Let's say that you're suffering from prostate cancer. Your FOR PROFIT doctor says you need $100,000 worth of treatments... Your second opinion doctor says you need therapy that costs only a couple thousand.

So, is your for profit doctor looking out for YOUR interests or is he looking out for his OWN?

excon

Hello again, El:

I don't know what's so hard here. You've got an industry that makes $25 Billion a year doing stuff. If you can get another entity (the government) to do the same stuff at the same rate, with the same cost structure, but doesn't have owners that it needs to split the profits with, there's $25 Billion left over to spend on whatever - like the uninsured. It's just simple arithmetic and not too difficult to understand.

excon


OH come on now EC. You have been around more than two weeks. When have you EVER known the government to do anything and make a profit at it?
If the private sector can do it and make 25B dollars, if the fed government were to take it over and change nothing I would expect them to loose 25B dollars in the second year of operation.
One only needs to look at how Freddie and Fanny were run into the ground for the profit of a few select individuals to see what a government owned/run operation would turn out like.

One only needs to look at how Freddie and Fanny were run into the ground for the profit of a few select individuals to see what a government owned/run operation would turn out like.Hello again, 450:

Surprisingly, I don't disagree with you. But, we KNOW how the present system is going to turn out - and it ain't pretty. So, I'd be willing to undergo some changes BEFORE it goes bust completely. You?

excon

Hello again, 450:

When I used the word "we" above, I probably shouldn't have. Of course, I assumed that "we" see the same problems in the health care industry, and that "we" see the need to fix it...

But, I'll bet, just like the Wolverine, you don't see ANY problems in our health care system. And you, like the Wolverine, consider it to be the BEST health care system in the world.

Furthermore, you think Obama's fix, isn't really designed to FIX anything, since you don't think anything is broken. It's really designed to promote socialism or solidify his rein as dictator, or something like that.

True??

excon

HA!! You finally got it right for a change!
All one need do is look to the rest of the worlds health care systems to know ours is clearly superior to any other system. Why is it that so many doctors from the rest of the world try and come here to practice medicine? Money? Partly I am sure. But if you get right down to it it is because we (theUSA) have the most modern of equipment and technologies. If all the doctors trained in places like India were to stay in India, what would happen? Would their health care systems be better? Would ours be worse? Ask yourself, why is it that citizens from other countries that can afford it come here instead of using their own (free) system? Several reasons stand out.
1) they have been denied for one reason or another. 2) the waiting period for care is too long and they could/would be dead before service is rendered.
There is no clear answer to the problem of the uninsured. However government intervention is NOT the answer. Like I said before when have you ever seen any government agency run efficiently? The answer of course is NEVER!

Hello again, El:

Lemme ask you a question.... Let's say that you're suffering from prostate cancer. Your FOR PROFIT doctor says you need $100,000 worth of treatments... Your second opinion doctor says you need therapy that costs only a couple thousand.

So, is your for profit doctor looking out for YOUR interests or is he looking out for his OWN?

excon

Both.

You see, if he gives bad advice to line his pockets, and patients suffer because of it, word begins to get around, patients stop going to him, and he ends up out of business. On the other hand, if he wants to stay in business as a doctor, he has to actually be effective at curing patients and offering good service. So in order for him to MAXIMIZE his profits, he has to do a good job for ME.

Now... in the scenario that you proposed, where I have two possible choices of treatment, under our current system I get to choose which treatment I like most based on advice from multiple sources. Under a government-run system, a guy sitting behind a desk makes that decision for me and I don't get the option. Most likely, he will choose the cheaper treatment, regardless of whether it really is the more effective one or not. And I don't get the option of getting the other treatment, even if I can prove that it will work better for me.

I'll take the current FOR PROFIT system, where I have choices, and doctors who want to stay in business HAVE to do a good job for me, over the government system where someone else makes the choices for me and I and my doctor have no say in the matter.

Elliot

You see, if he gives bad advice to line his pockets, and patients suffer because of it, word begins to get around, patients stop going to him, and he ends up out of business. On the other hand, if he wants to stay in business as a doctor, he has to actually be effective at curing patients and offering good service. So in order for him to MAXIMIZE his profits, he has to do a good job for ME.Hello again, El:

I used to believe that nicey nice Milton Friedman theory too, until I woke up to the real world. You see, I ran MY business based on those principles, and thought everyone else did too, because as your correctly point out, it IS in everyone's best interest to act that way...

But, in the real world, most business's DON'T act that way. They're interested in SHORT term profits - not long term business relationships. Most business try to get away with as much as they can. They think THAT'S where their profits lie - in screwing over their customer for the SHORT TERM BUCK and making the MOST out of the present circumstances.

If what you say is true, the banks wouldn't have lent to people who couldn't pay it back - but they did. Oh, I know you'll say the government made them do it - but I somehow don't believe that crap.

If you still have your head in the clouds, when was the last time a customer service representative actually answered their phone?? Doncha think that THOSE business would value you enough as a customer to actually answer the phone when you call?

By the way, when was the last time you asked your doctor for references?

excon

Hello again, El:

I don't know what's so hard here. You've got an industry that makes $25 Billion a year doing stuff. If you can get another entity (the government) to do the same stuff at the same rate, with the same cost structure, but doesn't have owners that it needs to split the profits with, there's $25 Billion left over to spend on whatever - like the uninsured. It's just simple arithmetic and not too difficult to understand.

excon

You are assuming that a body that doesn't care whether it loses money or not is going to be as efficient as a company that lives or dies by it's efficiencies. Remember the $500 hammer and the $1200 toilet seat paid for by the government? The government is, by it's very nature, the most inefficient spender of money in the entire world.

Additionally, the government is already (on a state by state basis) spending 21% of it's budget on Medicare and Medicaid and failing miserably at it.

You are also assuming that the government can do the job as well as the private sector. Go compare the care given at the VA Hospitals to that given at hospitals in the private sphere, and tell me whether the government can do the job as well as can be done in the private sector. The answer is no, and you know it.

Finally, keep in mind that government employees are all unionized. The benefits for union employees cost much more than the benefits offered in the private sector. Especially when it comes to pensions and the like. (NY City is currently paying for 3 police forces... one that is currently working and two that are retired but have full salary pensions.) The costs of administering a government-run health system are going to be twice or three times as high as the costs of administering a private system, just because of the cost of retirement benefits for former government-insurance employees.

Do you think that there will be $25 billion left over after doubling or tripling the costs of those government retirees?

That's what I meant when I said that just knowing the net income figure isn't enough information. You have to understand the entire P&L and the balance sheet as well in order to put that $25 billion in context. You don't know what the costs of running a medical insurance company are, what the similar costs of running them would be for a government with union employees, and whether $25 billion is enough to sustain that increase in expenses, much less enough to cover more people.

Elliot

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50677) before voting on it.

“If every member pledged to not vote for it if they hadn’t read it in its entirety, I think we would have very few votes,” Hoyer told CNSNews.com at his regular weekly news conference.

Hoyer was responding to a question from CNSNews.com on whether he supported a pledge that asks members of the Congress to read the entire bill before voting on it and also make the full text of the bill available to the public for 72 hours before a vote.

In fact, Hoyer found the idea of the pledge humorous, laughing as he responded to the question. “I’m laughing because a) I don’t know how long this bill is going to be, but it’s going to be a very long bill,” he said.

Well now gee, it's a long bill so let's not quibble about whether we actually know what it contains. Poor things, wouldn't be able to pass a darn thing if they actually had to read the crap they're pushing on the American public. Here's an idea, stop submitting this massive, complex nonsense that no one reads in the first place.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Tuesday that the health-care reform bill now pending in Congress would garner very few votes if lawmakers actually had to read the entire bill (http://www.cnsnews.com/public/content/article.aspx?RsrcID=50677) before voting on it.


Maybe because the bill being crafted is loaded with unrelated or periferally related pork.


Tucked within is a provision that could provide billions of dollars for walking paths, streetlights, jungle gyms, and even farmers' markets.
The add-ons - characterized as part of a broad effort to improve the nation's health “infrastructure'' - appear in House and Senate versions of the bill.


In health bill, billions for parks, paths - The Boston Globe (http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2009/07/09/in_health_bill_billions_for_parks_paths?mode=PF)

This is a pretty long thread, and maybe this point has already been made. If so I apologize.

VA hospitals are government run health care.

Would you want them to be your only source of health care?

I have had some relatives who didn't think much of their quality.